Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Considering the sheer number of weapons available to pretty much anyone in the US, I'm more inclined to say the former is more likely than the latter. Unlike Mexico, where it is hideously illegal for a regular citizen to own a gun, almost anyone can drop down to the gun shows here and pick up a mini arsenal.

...but isn't the problem -- as pointed out by the Beep's article that sparked this discussion -- lies with the tendency that the sort of people who'd go to a gun show, get themselves a zombie apocalypse's worth of weapons, and shoot "evil people in power" are the right wing extremists, exactly the sort who are blaming Jews and blacks and welfare and the federal government?

It's a horrible notion, syn, but if guns are raised in Fox News America today, they will be pointing at you first, for the "crime" of you being who you are, not at the barons of industry. Such is their ideology.

Of course, the good thing is that we're not remotely close to that situation. The article is correct in that there is indeed a massive rise in right wing extremism (as well as less extreme, but equally disturbing, rise of right wing lobbying forces closely tied to the Republican party), but it fails to mention that this force remains, even in the worst case, an extreme, if loud and disproportionately visible, minority. A 1000% increase (to use a hypothetical number) just means that there's now a thousand members in the KKK instead of a hundred, rather than millions of fanatics ready to institute fascist America.

...but isn't the problem -- as pointed out by the Beep's article that sparked this discussion -- lies with the tendency that the sort of people who'd go to a gun show, get themselves a zombie apocalypse's worth of weapons, and shoot "evil people in power" are the right wing extremists, exactly the sort who are blaming Jews and blacks and welfare and the federal government?

It's a horrible notion, syn, but if guns are raised in Fox News America today, they will be pointing at you first, for the "crime" of you being who you are, not at the barons of industry. Such is their ideology.

Of course, the good thing is that we're not remotely close to that situation. The article is correct in that there is indeed a massive rise in right wing extremism (as well as less extreme, but equally disturbing, rise of right wing lobbying forces closely tied to the Republican party), but it fails to mention that this force remains, even in the worst case, an extreme, if loud and disproportionately visible, minority. A 1000% increase (to use a hypothetical number) just means that there's now a thousand members in the KKK instead of a hundred, rather than millions of fanatics ready to institute fascist America.

then the left-wing needs to start stocking up as well. A war is coming and it is time to get prepare.

By George Carlin... this is just a form of entertainment. You (western world) don't have enemies inside you go outside hunting. Let the inside groups grow. Then you hunt in your turf until they quiet down. Repeat cycle over and over. Lot's of entertainment in the TV for lot's of boring ppl that spend their lifes playing FPS.

A lot of people probably have no idea who he was or what the Habsburg house is or even the significance of this, but he was the last remaining tie to Pre-World War I Europe as the son of Austria-Hungary's last emperor. It's kind of the last dying gasps of the end of an era that saw Europe at the absolute pinnacle of it's power.

I consider America better off than in some third world country where I will be killed for just being a minority.

Still, no one really expected anything different. Well MY family didn't anyway.

Obama still has some trouble in the black community for not "giving back" but each subgroup has it's own unique hangups.

Frankly, the main problem I see is that people have no money. To me this is an underlying motivation of political protest, unrest or generally uppitiness. If everyone could afford their six pack, Dodge Ram and sweet ass TV a grace a President, then there wouldn't be AS big as a problem.

Otto von Habsburg was, by standards of European royalty, a good man, in that unlike most scions of fallen royal houses he did not merely sat on old money and wasted away in "high" society, but instead used his influence and his life to pursue better, more progressive causes, but the author of the article is full of it. Royal ass-kisser.

He contributed, yes, just as many politicians contributed, to the pan-European cause, but he could hardly be the "father" of the European Parliament. He had some influence among the nostalgic royalists by virtue of his prestigious name, and one could argue he used it for mostly good, yet he was in no possible way a giant of European politics. A good man's life -- if he indeed lived it -- will speak for itself; there is no need for lies.

The Habsburgs brought themselves down, fair and square. The blood of countless revolutions lie in their hands. They had plenty of opportunities to not oppress the workers, enslave the peasantry with serfdom, and retain the German aristocracy's dominance in all aspects of power. Otto was blameless of course of all this, having neither reigned nor ruled (and so ironically was Franz Ferdinand, the most progressive of all Habsburg princes, who once proposed to turn the Austro-Hungarian Empire into a "United States" for the cultures of the Empire), but the author would have you believe that somehow an Austro-Hungary that did not face WW1 would turn into a haven of federalism and democracy. The author also has a clear beef with socialism, with the EU (which he himself earlier praised as one of Otto's handiworks, uh-huh), with progressivism in general. Paleolithic reactionary, he does his idol no credit.

"The integrity of the education credentialing system came under attack after “an
unprecedented teacher cheating scandal where at least 178 teachers and principals in
more than half the city’s elementary schools changed test answers in order to make
themselves and the district look good” in Atlanta. The problem came to light when
statistical analysis showed the test results to be improbable, or in some cases,
impossible.

What drove the fraud was the need to continue reaping the rewards for
unprecendented improvements suggested by spectacular test scores. And, like a person
who lies on his resume to get promoted, bureaucrats in the district kept lying to cover
the past lie and keep reaping the rewards. An investigation into what could be the
biggest single scandal in American educational history was damning."

Otto von Habsburg was, by standards of European royalty, a good man, in that unlike most scions of fallen royal houses he did not merely sat on old money and wasted away in "high" society, but instead used his influence and his life to pursue better, more progressive causes, but the author of the article is full of it. Royal ass-kisser.

He contributed, yes, just as many politicians contributed, to the pan-European cause, but he could hardly be the "father" of the European Parliament. He had some influence among the nostalgic royalists by virtue of his prestigious name, and one could argue he used it for mostly good, yet he was in no possible way a giant of European politics. A good man's life -- if he indeed lived it -- will speak for itself; there is no need for lies.

The Habsburgs brought themselves down, fair and square. The blood of countless revolutions lie in their hands. They had plenty of opportunities to not oppress the workers, enslave the peasantry with serfdom, and retain the German aristocracy's dominance in all aspects of power. Otto was blameless of course of all this, having neither reigned nor ruled (and so ironically was Franz Ferdinand, the most progressive of all Habsburg princes, who once proposed to turn the Austro-Hungarian Empire into a "United States" for the cultures of the Empire), but the author would have you believe that somehow an Austro-Hungary that did not face WW1 would turn into a haven of federalism and democracy. The author also has a clear beef with socialism, with the EU (which he himself earlier praised as one of Otto's handiworks, uh-huh), with progressivism in general. Paleolithic reactionary, he does his idol no credit.

By WWI, A-H could not longer compete as a major power, industrial or financial. There was nothing solid to back its standing as a power, and WWI exposed that to no end. Its chances of survival, even without WWI, are low.

Founded by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran of print and broadcast media, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Cheney,

Another mouthpiece that constructs a narrative that confirms world views and manipulates them.

Moving to *real* news, we'll suffer one less crap-ass tabloid for a bit as Murdoch shuts down the "News of the World" tabloid after the outrage it generated. The newspaper was caught hacking the phones of bombing victims and a murder case (possibly destroying evidence in the case of the latter by deleting voice mails).

Now do I believe Murdoch grew a heart like the Grinch? Nope, he's just sending the assets scurrying into the shadows and it will reformulate under a new "brand". The only regret is over being caught...